Workflow automation for brokers, MGAs, claims administrators, and underwriting teams, from FNOL to settlement.
Screenshots
The sun and moon switch a screen between light and dark, and a click opens it full size.
See all 77 screens in the product tourEach one is purpose-built for insurance operations rather than a generic template. They are set out in full below.
Capture first notification of loss from any channel, validate policy details in real time, and route claims to the right handler, all without manual re-keying.
Most insurers still rely on call handlers manually transcribing loss details into multiple systems. Delays between notification and acknowledgement increase fraud exposure, inflate indemnity spend, and put you on the wrong side of the FCA's Consumer Duty outcome expectations for timely communication.
Manual re-keying across systems
Handlers copy details from phone notes into the policy admin system, claims platform, and broker portal, introducing transcription errors and adding minutes to each notification.
Delayed triage decisions
Without automatic policy validation, handlers spend time confirming cover, excess levels, and endorsement conditions before the claim even reaches an adjuster.
Inconsistent data capture
Free-text notes produce incomplete records that cause downstream rework during reserving, liability assessment, and FCA complaints handling.
FCA Consumer Duty pressure
Outcome 3 (Consumer Understanding) requires clear, timely communication. Slow acknowledgement and missing status updates risk regulatory scrutiny.
Omnichannel capture
Accept FNOL via web form, email, API, phone, or broker portal. Every submission follows the same structured workflow.
Real-time policy validation
Automatically match the loss event against active policy records, confirming cover type, excess, and endorsement conditions before the claim is created.
Rules-based routing
Route claims to specialist handlers by peril type, reserve band, or geographic region using configurable business rules. No developer needed.
Instant acknowledgement
Generate and send acknowledgement letters in your approved wording, with claim reference, next-steps guidance, and expected SLA, within seconds of submission.
Structured data templates
Dynamic question sets adapt to peril type (motor, property, liability) so the right data is captured first time.
A loss event is submitted via any supported channel. The system normalises the data into a standard FNOL record and assigns a unique claim reference.
The notification is matched against the policy admin system to confirm active cover, applicable excess, endorsements, and any co-insurance arrangements.
Missing fields trigger targeted follow-up requests. The claim is scored by peril complexity and estimated reserve band, then routed to the appropriate handler queue.
A personalised acknowledgement is sent to the policyholder and broker. The SLA timer starts, and the handler receives a fully populated case with all supporting documents attached.
Faster
Notification-to-acknowledgement
Automated policy lookup and acknowledgement letters sent on submission cut the policyholder's wait for a response.
Complete
First-touch data
Structured intake forms with mandatory fields mean notifications arrive with what handlers need, cutting callbacks for missing information.
Lower
Handling cost per claim
Less re-keying, fewer callbacks, and less error correction save handler time that adds up at volume.
Automatically score, segment, and prioritise incoming claims by complexity, value, and fraud indicators so your best handlers focus on the cases that matter most.
When every claim lands in the same queue, experienced adjusters spend time on straightforward notifications while complex, high-reserve cases wait. Manual triage is inconsistent, unauditable, and struggles to keep pace with notification volumes, especially during surge events like storms or flood.
Flat claim queues
Without automated scoring, all claims are treated equally. High-value or complex cases sit behind simple windscreen or accidental damage notifications.
Inconsistent segmentation
Different handlers apply different mental models to triage, producing inconsistent outcomes and making it impossible to benchmark handler performance.
Missed fraud indicators
Early fraud signals (policy inception proximity, repeat claimants, suspicious loss patterns) are buried in free text and not surfaced until investigation stage.
Surge event bottlenecks
Weather events and catastrophe scenarios overwhelm manual triage processes, causing SLA breaches and regulatory complaints.
Configurable scoring engine
Define weighted scoring rules across reserve band, peril type, claimant history, policy age, and geographic risk factors, all without code changes.
Fraud indicator flagging
Automatically flag claims that match configurable fraud patterns: policy inception proximity, multiple claims in period, known fraud postcodes, and more.
Multi-track routing
Route claims into fast-track, standard, and complex handling streams based on triage score. Each track has its own SLA, authority levels, and escalation rules.
Triage performance dashboards
Monitor triage accuracy, average time-to-allocation, and track distribution in real time. Identify bottlenecks before they cause SLA breaches.
Surge rules
Triage thresholds and routing rules can be adjusted for catastrophe events, keeping claim flow moving.
A new FNOL record enters the triage engine. The system extracts structured data fields including peril, location, estimated value, and claimant details.
The rules engine applies weighted criteria to produce a triage score. Claims are segmented into fast-track, standard, or complex handling streams.
Configurable fraud indicators are checked against the claim data. Flagged claims are diverted to the fraud referral queue with a summary of matched triggers.
The scored claim is allocated to the appropriate handler based on stream, handler specialism, current workload, and authority level. SLA timers are set per track.
Every scoring decision, rule matched, and routing outcome is logged to the audit trail for FCA evidencing and internal quality assurance.
Faster
Time to allocation
Automated scoring and routing replace manual queue review, so claims reach the right handler soon after submission.
Earlier
Fraud referrals
Systematic indicator checking surfaces suspicious claims at first contact, before reserves are set and costs incurred.
More
Claims on the fast track
Consistent identification of low-complexity claims puts more of them on the fast-track path, reducing cycle time and handler cost per claim.
Automate mid-term adjustments, renewals, cancellations, and endorsement processing, reducing admin burden and improving broker response times.
Mid-term adjustments, renewal invites, and cancellation processing still involve significant manual effort at many insurers and MGAs. Handlers toggle between policy admin systems, document templates, and email to process routine changes, creating delays that damage broker relationships and risk IDD non-compliance.
Slow MTA turnaround
Mid-term adjustments require manual premium recalculation, document regeneration, and broker notification, a process that can take days for routine changes.
Renewal pipeline management
Without automated triggers, renewal invitations go out late or not at all, leading to lost premiums and gaps in cover that expose the insurer to E&O risk.
IDD documentation gaps
Insurance Distribution Directive requires pre-contractual disclosure at every policy change. Manual processes make it easy to miss required documentation steps.
Automated MTA processing
Process standard mid-term adjustments (address changes, vehicle swaps, cover extensions) through rules-based workflows that recalculate premium and generate updated schedules automatically.
Renewal pipeline automation
Trigger renewal workflows at configurable lead times. Auto-generate renewal terms, invite letters, and broker notifications with no manual intervention.
IDD compliance checks
Configured checkpoints make sure IPID documents, demands-and-needs statements, and fair-value assessments are generated and recorded at each policy change event.
Premium recalculation engine
Apply rating adjustments for MTAs and renewals using configurable rules. Pro-rata and short-period calculations are handled automatically with full audit trail.
Broker portal and email
Share policy documents, endorsement confirmations, and renewal terms with brokers through the SwiftCase portal or by automated email, ending manual distribution.
Policy version control
Maintain a complete version history of every policy, with point-in-time snapshots available for claims validation, complaints handling, and regulatory reporting.
A broker or policyholder submits a mid-term adjustment, renewal instruction, or cancellation request via portal, email, or API.
The system validates the request against policy terms, applies rating rules to calculate any premium adjustment, and checks for underwriting referral triggers.
Updated policy schedules, endorsements, IPID documents, and any required IDD disclosures are generated automatically from the policy data.
If the change requires underwriter approval, it is routed to the appropriate authority level. Once approved, documents are distributed to the broker and policyholder.
The policy change is reflected in bordereaux data feeds, ensuring accurate premium reporting to capacity providers without manual reconciliation.
Faster
MTA turnaround
Automated premium recalculation and document generation let standard mid-term adjustments go through without waiting in a queue.
Better
Renewal retention
Timely, personalised renewal communications sent at the right lead time help keep policyholders.
Built in
IDD checkpoints
Each policy transaction includes mandatory documentation checkpoints, so the documents the Insurance Distribution Directive requires are generated and recorded.
Automate the production, validation, and submission of premium and claims bordereaux, cutting spreadsheet errors and tracking each capacity provider deadline.
MGAs, coverholders, and delegated authority carriers spend days each month compiling bordereaux reports from disparate systems. Manual data extraction, spreadsheet manipulation, and last-minute corrections are the norm, and errors in bordereaux can trigger capacity provider audits, financial penalties, and binding authority reviews.
Spreadsheet-based compilation
Teams manually extract data from policy admin, claims, and finance systems into Excel templates, a process that takes days per reporting cycle and invites formula errors.
Data quality issues
Mismatched policy references, missing premium splits, and incorrect claim reserves cause capacity providers to reject submissions, triggering re-work cycles.
Deadline pressure
Monthly and quarterly submission deadlines create intense pressure. Late bordereaux risk regulatory sanctions under Lloyd's or London Market standards.
Automated data aggregation
Pull premium, policy, and claims data from connected systems into a single bordereaux dataset. No manual extraction or copy-paste required.
Pre-submission validation
Run configurable validation rules against the compiled data before submission, catching missing fields, format errors, and data inconsistencies before the capacity provider sees them.
Deadline management
Track submission deadlines for every capacity provider and treaty. Automated reminders and escalations flag a submission at risk of running late.
Template management
Maintain versioned bordereaux templates for each capacity provider. When a provider changes their format requirements, update the template once and all future reports follow suit.
Submission audit trail
Every bordereaux submission is logged with the dataset used, validation results, and submission timestamp, providing complete evidencing for delegated authority audits.
At the configured reporting frequency, the system automatically extracts premium, policy, and claims data from connected source systems into a staging dataset.
The staging data is validated against capacity provider rules, checking for completeness, format compliance, premium balancing, and reserve consistency.
Any validation failures are surfaced to the responsible team member with clear descriptions. Exceptions are resolved within the workflow and re-validated before proceeding.
The validated bordereaux is presented for sign-off by the designated approver, then submitted to the capacity provider via their preferred channel: portal upload, SFTP, or email.
Faster
Preparation
Automated data aggregation and validation cut the days spent preparing bordereaux, freeing finance teams for higher-value work.
Fewer
Rejected submissions
Pre-submission validation catches errors before they reach the capacity provider, cutting rejection and re-work cycles.
Tracked
Submission deadlines
Automated deadline tracking and escalation flag any bordereaux at risk of running late, protecting your binding authority status.
Structure the journey from reserve to payment with configurable approval chains, automated payment processing, and full audit trails.
Settlement is where claims handling meets financial control. Without structured workflows, authority limits are informally managed, payment approvals happen over email, and the audit trail is scattered across systems. This delays payments to policyholders, directly conflicting with FCA Consumer Duty expectations, and increases the risk of overpayment or leakage.
Informal authority management
Handler authority limits are often managed via spreadsheets or tribal knowledge. Breaches are caught late, if at all, creating financial control and compliance risk.
Email-based approvals
Settlement approvals happen in email chains, making them slow, unauditable, and easy to miss, especially when approvers are out of office.
Payment processing delays
Manual payment instruction creation and multi-system data entry mean policyholders wait days between approval and receipt, damaging satisfaction and increasing complaints.
Weak audit trail
Settlement rationale, reserve movements, and approval decisions are captured inconsistently, making it difficult to evidence fair treatment during FCA reviews.
Configurable authority matrix
Define settlement authority limits by handler grade, claim type, and reserve band. The system enforces limits automatically. No payment can proceed without appropriate sign-off.
Structured approval workflows
Multi-stage approval chains route settlement requests to the right authority level. Approvers can review, amend, or reject within the platform with full rationale capture.
Automated payment processing
Generate payment instructions as a file or API call in the format your finance system or payment provider expects.
Consumer Duty evidencing
Capture settlement rationale, fair value considerations, and vulnerability flags at point of decision. Produce MI reports demonstrating fair treatment outcomes.
Reserve tracking
Track reserve movements through the claim lifecycle with automatic alerts when reserves breach notification thresholds for reinsurance or excess-of-loss treaties.
The claims handler documents the settlement rationale, proposed payment amount, and any applicable deductions (excess, contribution, salvage credit). Reserve is reviewed and adjusted.
The system checks the payment amount against the handler's authority limit. If it exceeds their level, the settlement is routed to the appropriate approver based on the authority matrix.
The approver reviews the claim file, settlement rationale, and supporting evidence. They approve, amend, or refer back, all within the workflow with timestamped rationale.
On approval, the system generates a payment instruction in the required format and submits it to the finance system or payment provider. The policyholder is notified of the payment.
Once payment is confirmed, the claim is closed with a complete audit record: settlement rationale, approval chain, payment confirmation, and final reserve position.
Faster
Approval-to-payment cycle
In-platform approvals and automated payment instruction generation reduce the time between settlement decision and policyholder payment.
Enforced
Authority limits
System-enforced authority matrices stop a settlement payment going ahead without the right level of approval.
Fewer
Settlement complaints
Faster payments, clearer communication, and consistent decision-making cut the complaints that follow a slow or unclear settlement.
Auto-generate policy schedules, claim letters, renewal notices, and regulatory documents from structured data, eliminating manual drafting and formatting errors.
Insurance operations produce thousands of documents each month: policy schedules, claim acknowledgements, settlement letters, renewal invites, and regulatory disclosures. When these are drafted manually or assembled from inconsistent templates, errors creep in. Incorrect policy details, missing regulatory wording, and inconsistent branding damage professionalism and create compliance exposure.
Template sprawl
Multiple versions of the same template circulate across teams. Handlers use outdated wording, miss required paragraphs, and produce inconsistent output that undermines brand standards.
Regulatory wording risks
FCA-required disclosures, IDD statements, and Consumer Duty fair-value summaries must appear in specific documents. Manual assembly makes it easy to omit mandatory content.
Production bottlenecks
High-volume periods (renewal cycles, catastrophe events) create document backlogs that delay policyholder communication and breach SLA commitments.
Centrally managed templates
Maintain a single, version-controlled template library. When wording changes, update the template once. Every future document uses the latest version.
Merge-field automation
Pull data from policy, claims, and customer records to populate documents automatically. No manual data entry, no copy-paste errors.
Regulatory content blocks
Mandatory paragraphs (FCA disclosures, IDD requirements, complaints procedures) are locked content blocks that cannot be removed or edited by users.
Conditional content logic
Show or hide document sections based on policy type, claim status, or customer attributes. A single template handles multiple scenarios intelligently.
Multi-channel distribution
Distribute generated documents by email or through the broker or customer portal, with each send logged against the policy or claim.
A workflow event (new policy, MTA, claim acknowledgement, settlement) triggers the appropriate document template. The system identifies the correct template version automatically.
Merge fields are populated from structured data sources. Conditional logic determines which sections to include based on policy type, claim status, and customer attributes.
The generated document passes through automated quality checks, verifying that all mandatory fields are populated, regulatory blocks are present, and formatting is correct.
The approved document is distributed via the configured channel (email, portal, or printed for post) with the send logged against the policy or claim record.
Faster
Document production
Automated merge-field population and template selection take the manual drafting out of each document.
Locked
Regulatory wording
Locked content blocks and mandatory field validation keep the required regulatory disclosures in each document.
Fewer
Document-related complaints
Consistent, accurate documents with correct policy details and clear language reduce confusion and the resulting complaints.
Manage the full MGA operating model, from binding authority compliance through underwriting workflow to capacity provider reporting, in a single connected platform.
Managing General Agents operate in a unique space: underwriting on behalf of capacity providers, managing broker relationships, and satisfying regulatory obligations that span both the FCA and Lloyd's. Many MGAs run critical processes on spreadsheets and email because traditional policy admin systems are too rigid and expensive. This creates operational risk, limits growth, and makes audit preparation painful.
Binding authority compliance burden
Coverholders must evidence compliance with the terms of their binding authority agreements: underwriting within agreed parameters, reporting accurately, and maintaining adequate controls.
Disconnected underwriting workflows
Risk submissions arrive via email, are assessed informally, and decisions are recorded inconsistently. This makes it impossible to demonstrate underwriting discipline to capacity providers.
Capacity provider reporting overhead
Each capacity provider requires different reporting formats, frequencies, and data granularity. Manual report production consumes senior underwriting time better spent on risk selection.
Audit preparation anxiety
Lloyd's coverholder audits and capacity provider reviews require demonstrable controls. Assembling evidence from email, spreadsheets, and file notes takes weeks.
Underwriting workbench
A structured workflow for risk submission, assessment, referral, and decision, capturing the full underwriting rationale with every quote and bind.
Binding authority controls
Configure authority limits, risk appetite parameters, and aggregation caps per binding authority. The system prevents out-of-authority binds and flags referrals automatically.
Capacity provider reporting
Auto-generate premium, claims, and performance reports in each capacity provider's required format. Schedule automated delivery against each reporting deadline.
Audit-ready file management
Maintain a complete, indexed record of every underwriting decision, policy transaction, and claim event, so coverholder audit evidence is already in one place.
Broker relationship management
Track submissions by broker, monitor hit ratios, and manage broker agreements. Give brokers portal access to submit risks and track quote progress.
Brokers submit risks via portal or email. The system captures structured data, attaches supporting documents, and creates a quotation workflow instance.
The underwriter reviews the risk against binding authority parameters. The system checks aggregation exposure, highlights referral triggers, and captures the assessment rationale.
Approved risks are quoted with terms generated from rating rules. On bind, policy documents are produced and the risk is recorded against the relevant binding authority.
MTAs, renewals, and claims are processed within connected workflows. All transactions feed automatically into capacity provider reports and bordereaux.
Automated reports are generated per capacity provider schedule. A permanent audit trail supports coverholder reviews, Lloyd's audits, and FCA supervision.
Faster
Audit preparation
Structured workflows and centralised file management mean audit evidence is already gathered when the auditors call.
Enforced
Authority limits
System-enforced authority limits and referral triggers stop a bind outside agreed parameters, protecting your coverholder status.
More
Underwriting throughput
Structured workflows and automated reporting free underwriters to focus on risk assessment and broker relationships rather than administration.
Manage insurance complaints from receipt to resolution with structured workflows, regulatory deadline tracking, and FOS-ready case files, demonstrating Consumer Duty compliance at every step.
The FCA expects firms to handle complaints promptly, fairly, and with consistent outcomes. Under Consumer Duty, firms must actively monitor complaint trends for evidence of systemic issues. Yet many insurers still manage complaints in email inboxes and spreadsheet trackers, missing deadlines, producing inconsistent outcomes, and lacking the MI to satisfy regulatory scrutiny.
Missed DISP deadlines
FCA DISP rules require acknowledgement within 5 business days and final response within 8 weeks. Without automated tracking, deadlines are missed, triggering FOS referral rights and regulatory scrutiny.
Inconsistent outcomes
Without structured decision frameworks, similar complaints receive different outcomes depending on which handler deals with them, which is evidence of unfair treatment under Consumer Duty.
Poor root cause analysis
Spreadsheet-based tracking makes it impossible to analyse complaint trends, identify systemic issues, or demonstrate to the FCA that you are learning from complaints.
Inadequate FOS file preparation
When complaints escalate to the Financial Ombudsman Service, assembling a complete case file from scattered email chains and system notes takes hours and often produces gaps.
Structured complaint workflow
A step-by-step process from receipt through investigation to final response, ensuring every complaint follows the same consistent, auditable path.
DISP deadline tracking
Automatic calculation of FCA DISP deadlines with escalation alerts at configurable intervals, before an acknowledgement or final response falls due.
Root cause analysis & MI
Categorise complaints by product, cause, and outcome. Generate FCA-ready MI reports showing complaint volumes, trends, and the actions taken to address root causes.
FOS-ready case file assembly
Automatically compile a complete case file (complaint details, investigation notes, decision rationale, correspondence, and supporting evidence) ready for FOS submission.
Vulnerability flagging
Identify and flag vulnerable customers at complaint intake. Ensure appropriate handling adjustments and record the additional support provided.
The complaint is logged with categorisation by product, issue type, and severity. DISP deadline timers start automatically. Vulnerable customer indicators are assessed.
The handler reviews policy, claim, and communication records. The investigation is guided by a structured framework that ensures consistent depth of review across all complaints.
The handler records their decision with structured rationale. The final response letter is generated from the complaint data, including required FCA disclosures and FOS referral rights.
A sample of final responses are reviewed by a senior complaint handler or compliance officer before dispatch. QA findings feed into handler training and process improvement.
The complaint is closed with outcome classification. Data feeds into root cause analysis dashboards, FCA returns, and Consumer Duty board reporting.
Tracked
DISP deadlines
Automated deadline tracking and escalation flag a complaint before it runs past an FCA-mandated timeframe.
Fewer
Complaints upheld by the FOS
Consistent decision frameworks and thorough investigation workflows improve the quality of complaint outcomes, so fewer are overturned by the Ombudsman.
Faster
Case file assembly
Automated file compilation cuts FOS preparation time, with complete documentation and a clear chronology.
Tell us the one process causing the most pain and we will tell you whether it fits a 30-day pilot, and what the scope and fixed price would be.
